Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Satinder Pal Singh Walia And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 15 December, 2011

Author: Daya Chaudhary

Bench: Daya Chaudhary

C.W.P. No. 10932 of 2011                                    (1)

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                        C.W.P. No. 10932 of 2011

                                        DATE OF DECISION: 15.12.2011


Satinder Pal Singh Walia and others                  ..........Petitioners

                          Versus

State of Punjab and others                           ..........Respondents



BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY



Present:-    Mr. GC Gupta, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. L.S. Virk, DAG, Punjab.

             Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate
             for respondent No.3.

                          ****


DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

The present petition has been filed for issuing directions to the respondents to make payment of arrears of difference of revised pension from 1.8.2009 to 30.4.2010, difference of enhanced DA from 35% to 45%, difference of LTC, difference of pay as per revised grade w.e.f. 1.1.2006 upto their retirement to the tune of 40% of the total arrears, difference of gratuity and encahsment of un-utilized earned leave due to revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.2006 till the date of retirement.

Notice of motion was issued on 4.7.2011.

In response thereto, replies on behalf of State as well as respondent No.3 have already been filed and the same are on record.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has fairly stated that some of the payment has already been released and some of the payment C.W.P. No. 10932 of 2011 (2) could not be released to the petitioners due to paucity of funds. He further submits that the payment, which has not been released to the petitioners would be released shortly, preferably, within a period of six months.

Keeping in view the stand taken by counsel for respondent No.3, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to release the remaining dues within a period of three months from today. In case the payment is not released to the petitioners within three months from today, they would be entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

Disposed of accordingly.

December 15, 2011                           (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
pooja                                          JUDGE